A Look at Obamacare

Obamacare: Fact vs Fiction

This blog was suggested by a form letter from a United States Senator that contained so many lies, misconceptions and misleading statements that I felt someone had to respond. I guess I am that someone. The form letter came from that paragon of Alzheimer’s, Senator Rockefeller (D)WV. I guess I should show you the letter in its entirety:

Dear ******,
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the repeal of the health care reform law. I know there are a lot of questions about this new law, and I appreciate this opportunity to be in touch.
In March 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive health reform legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care, and stop health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with per-existing health conditions. The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to small businesses that provide coverage to their employees, makes prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and beginning in 2014, provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Additionally, the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.
My vote for comprehensive health reform came after years and years of listening to West Virginians who could not afford the health care they needed – with devastating health and financial consequences.  I truly believe that no state has more to gain from health reform than West Virginia, and I will continue to closely monitor its implementation and make it work for our state and our people.
Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the House of Representatives has voted to repeal it completely, or in part, more than 30 times – while offering no alternative plan. These efforts were continued in the Senate by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. On February 2, 2011, Minority Leader McConnell brought the repeal vote to the Senate floor through an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act (S. 223). The health reform repeal vote in the Senate failed by a vote 47 to 51. I voted against the McConnell amendment.
The health reform law is not perfect – no law is – and it does not address every concern. We can and must monitor health care reform carefully, listen to American families and businesses, and fix whatever doesn’t work. But wholesale repeal of health care reform would take away important benefits for West Virginians.
According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, repealing the health reform law would add $109 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, while keeping it in place would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. Repeal would reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years, making it insolvent by 2016. Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients. The stakes are too high – for every patient, for every family, for every business struggling with health care costs – not to move forward.
I have attached a fact sheet for your reference on what repeal of the health care law would mean for West Virginians. To learn more about the new health reform law, please visit http://www.healthcare.gov.  If you do not have a computer in your home, you may access the Internet at your local public library, free of charge.
As we continue implementation of this new law, your views and experiences will be critically important to me. Thank you again for contacting me. I wish you the very best.
With Warm Regards,
Jay Rockefeller
I will attempt to address each of the highlighted areas with both my own thoughts and those of officials both in and outside the beltway.
The first of these: ”legislation that will reduce health care costs, improve access to care “ Let me tell you of some friends of mine that live a good life on the shores of Lake Erie in Ohio. Once Obamacare was passed their insurance tripled! Tripled! Two people, no children and their insurance premiums tripled! Obama and the Democrats promised that insurance rates for the average American family would decrease by $2500.00 when in fact, according to the GAO those same families are facing an average increase of $2585.00 per year. More of an increase than the promised decrease was supposed to be. Then there are the over three million Americans whose insurance has been canceled, including an estimated 10,500 right in the Senator’s home state of West Virginia. I personally have had three physicians refuse to accept medicare and medicaid because of the new regulations. Yet this man has the audacity to claim it “will reduce health care costs,improve access to care.” He doesn’t seem to live in the same world I do.
Next: provides millions of dollars in premium tax credits to help individuals and working families in West Virginia buy coverage through a competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace. Yes, there is a provision to grant tax credit to certain FEW that qualify. One thing though – the tax credit does not cover the increased costs they are facing. And then there are all of the people that simply don’t qualify for the tax credits, but do qualify for the fee of “the greater of $750.00 or 2% of their income” starting in 2014 if you do not sign up for Obamacare. And as we know, many people simply can’t sign up. A decent living wage in these times might be $50,000. 2% of that is $1,000.00 so there aren’t many that would be charged only $750.00 and those that are, certainly can’t afford to pay it, yet the cost of insurance under this law is even more with the so called tax credits.
Now about that “competitive new Health Insurance Marketplace” – we have all seen the news about the vast number of insurance companies that are refusing to enter it. Note the 3 plus million canceled policies. Competitive marketplace indeed. The new law is designed to create a SINGLE PAYOR health care. This is already being seen by the number of insurance companies that will no longer be allowed to provide the medigap coverage. Only the largest will be doing that from this point on.
Next: “the health reform law adds eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund. “ This one is, at least in part, true. It is done in a very simple manner. They gutted medicare. It has nothing to do with Obamacare other than as a way to slow the deficit created by it. Know anybody on SSI? They are having their benefits cut over the next few years to help pay for Obamacare. Remember the fact that medicare benefits have decreased already. Well, unless you are an illegal alien.
Next: “According to the most recent estimate by the independent Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years.”
The first point here is the reference to the so called “independent Congressional Budget Office is the budget office congresspeople like to site when the Government Accounting Office (GAO) doesn’t give the information the way they want it. Remember the old adage that figures don’t lie but liars figure? The GAO takes into account more of the actual costs of implementing and maintaining the AFA and they are estimating that the budget will increase by somewhere in the neighborhood of one trillion dollars over the next ten years because of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. Reduce the deficit indeed.
Next: Repeal would also raise seniors’ prescription drug costs, deny health care to sick people, take away tax breaks for small businesses, and put health insurance companies back in charge of decisions that should be made by doctors and patients.
There four parts to this one. The first regards seniors drug costs. Yep they would go up! About double! And that is an example of liars figuring. The cost for a generic prescription would, possibly, go from $2.00 to $4.00. True statement. I am on medicare and have the requisite prescription coverage and my costs are accurately reflected in the above statement.
The second is the denying of health care to sick people. Under Obamacare more people are denied health care than ever before. Just take a glance at your local news show every day. (If it isn’t one of the mainstream liberal stations. They tend to ignore all negative Obamacare news.) Then there is the provision in Obamacare that states that the decisions of the Review Board shall consider the Quantity of Life over the Quality of Life. Which, simply stated, means that if you are around 70 you can and will be denied expensive health care because, what the heck, you aren’t going to be around all that much longer so who cares? The you must remember that that review board will be composed of politicians or their sycophants.
Third is tax breaks for small businesses. This one sounds like the used car dealer that raises his prices then puts the cars on sale. Let’s see now… how many new taxes did Obamacare create? I lost count around a dozen so I don’t really have an answer for you, but I have a hunch that if Obamacare were repealed we would all save on taxes, not just small businesses.
The last is putting health care decisions in the hands of insurance companies. OK. Some HMOs were guilty of this one for a while, but soon learned that was not a profitable way to do business. The attorneys and all those law suits might have had something to do with it. All of the ills with the old health care could be fixed with two new laws. Insurance companies have no power to make health decisions for its clients by denying coverage for medically necessary procedures and they must grant coverage for pre-existing conditions. This last would cause a slight rise in rates, but spread over all of the insured that rise should be relatively painless, unlike the rate increases caused by Obamacare. Remember those two laws I suggested, some states already have them, would put the decisions in the hands, of all people, your Doctor! What a novel idea.

Defining Liberal and Conservative

What IS a Conservative? Or a Liberal?

I am going to share a Couple of dictionary definitions of both Liberal and Conservative. WARNING... This is going to surprise most or you so fasten your seat belts!

Wikipedia:

Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were"

Free Dictionary.com

Conservatism, in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.

I know not too many surprises there, but wait for it. Wait for it...

Wikipedia:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or world view founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

The term Liberal came into being during the French Revolution. Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition.

So you see Thomas Jefferson was a flaming Liberal in his day. All of the founding fathers were and they were so adamant that they were willing to risk their '...lives, fortune and honour...' to set up a new government. They were the traitors of their time, reviled by most nations and their governments. So just this one time I say thank you God for giving us those traitors!

So what happened? Here is what: According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought.  Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on many countries (see Liberalism by country).
So when you here that the 'Liberal Party' in England or France wins an election try to remember that is a GOOD thing.

Enough with the back ground. What is today's Conservative and Liberal. That is tougher to define than you might think. There is a gentleman that frequently posts to a Tea Party Face Book page that would have you believe that if you don't agree with him and the Liberty Alliance, you're a liberal. Or at the very least a RINO. The man has never been wrong. Even when called on something his answer is that the other person is a RINO or an out and out Liberal. I know a 'Liberal' that believes wholeheartedly the Democrat's platform, but thinks Obama is a stupid criminal that should be shot after a fair trial and both Pelosi and Reid are just ignorant mouthpieces for that selfsame criminal. So you see it is possible to find areas of agreement with some of the people on the left. :)

I guess I am going to have to offer my definition of these two terms for good or ill. Here goes:
A Conservative is a person that believes the Constitution after a Christian God, is the supreme law of this land and should be followed under a strict constructionist discipline, but recognizes that even that amazing document has developed flaws. Flaws not in its basic principles, rather due to the evolution of society. The founding fathers could never for see where children could not, by government fiat, be punished and did not fall under the discretion of their parents. They could never for see such an anomaly as a professional politician, or a tyrannical president with sycophants ruling the Congress they so carefully set up as a separate power.

What is a Liberal, in my view? A Liberal is that person that believes that the Constitution is an old and antiquated document whose time has passed. It is time for the Government to step in and run things. We need the Government to take care of so many things. The raising of our children and oversee their education. Things like that just can't be left in the hands of educators and, God forbid, the parents. Health care must be mandated whether the simple minded voter wants it or not. The Federal Government must delve into our personal lives in the name of our home land's security. There can be no privacy. Who knows what plots may be fostered by the people if they continue to function without Government oversight?

Strong Language? Not really. Not if you are truly aware of the situation in this country today. And no, I don't think I have put words into any liberal's mouth. That is just the facts, Mam. OK So some of them won't admit to them in public, but far too many live them.

As usual I have run out of self constraining space for this time. Hope you learned something or at least became involved enough to get angry with me. Or perhaps just nod and smile. Until next we meet.

How Media Bias Works

How Does Media Bias Work?

Do you think the media bias has any real effect on the voting public? Remember we are talking about a nation of citizens fifty percent of whom are politically ignorant and apathetic. They may see news blurbs on rare occasions, but they certainly don’t actually have any curiosity nor use any intelligence in what they read. They are headline readers. Now consider the headlines in the news on line, in the newspapers, and at the head of the hour on broadcasts. Consider these two headlines: “House harasses Hillary on the time she knew about the attacks. She asks ‘What difference does it make?’” And this one: Hillary screams ‘What difference does is make?’ when asked about Bengazi deaths. Which one is liberal and which is conservative news? Yeah. How about simple coverage? The point here is what makes them biased? The adjectives attached to a news story. They express an opinion and are not facts. Nor are they news. I watched the hearing that day. What I saw and heard was a Legislator questioning a probable hostile witness. He did not harass that witness; however he did ask pointed questions that were germane to the topic. Her answer was not screamed, it was stated in what may well have been dripping with sarcasm, in my opinion, :) but her voice was only slightly increased in volume. Definitely not ‘screamed’. So both sides practiced their own form of ‘biased reporting’. Oh, for the good old days when reporters reported the news.

Another form of ‘bias’ is demonstrated by the simple act of censorship. If you don’t report a story, no one can form an opinion. By the same token, if you don’t report the full story, you lead people to form an erroneous picture of events. Example? OK. Let’s look at the alleged terrorist Ahmed Abu Khattala, self proclaimed ‘Mastermind’ of the Benghazi Attack. The bias on the left reported that the federal government “…finally found …” the man. Great work, right? Hmmm there is one point that should be made here. Both Fox news and CNN interviewed him weeks before the government ‘found’ him. OK. Right wing Fox and the slowly moderating CNN did report that fact. (How many of you caught the bias in that last statement?) It still, to my knowledge, has not been mentioned by any other media outlet. If you don’t report it, your demographic won’t know about it. Remember those first impressions I mentioned?

These examples could go on forever. I hope you are starting to get a feel for how you are manipulated on a daily basis. The only cure I know of is a liberal dose of each side and the ability to think. Of course that presupposes that you do want to know the facts. I keep remembering the standby line from that old TV show, Dragnet, “Just the facts, Mam.” I do not deny the right and even the value of editorializing. When and where appropriate, I just disagree that a NEWS outlet should be doing it. It belongs on a show like the “View” or “Hannity” or even “Rush”. Not in the NEWS!

Comments or questions?

 

Nicholas County Tea Party Page.

When I do post it does seem to drive up the visits rather dramatically, but if I am the only one then it might be time to ask the question, is it  worth it?   Do you want me to close the page?  That is the question.

 

page.

The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

Why I have maintained that attempting to impeach the man in the White House is down right stupid is really simple; however, the explanation takes a little time as it involves education. Try to remember that a failure to convict on the articles of impeachment will render it impossible to do so at a later date., for any reason.

Impeachment is not a finding, it is an indictment. After the indictment comes the trail. Impeaching BOH would be easy. The house presents a Articles of Impeachemnt, the votes are counted and he is impeached. Then comes the problem. The trial. That is conducted in the Senate only and the judge is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as mandated in our constitution. Even Dirty Harry cannot refuse to hold that trial and the president can’t use an executive order to make it go away. He must be tried if the house impeaches, BUT, and it is a big but, as things stand now the senate would never vote to convict. So we wait. Thank goodness some of the politicians are being smart. Not too many I agree, but there are some.

If we can take control of the senate with just a few votes over a simple majority there MIGHT be a chance. Here is the full process and some comments on that process:

In the Senate

  • The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

  • The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

  • A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as “prosecutors.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

  • The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

  • The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction. (note: 67 senators have to vote for conviction)

  • The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

  • The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Well, that’s up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

  • Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

  • Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

There are obvious land mines in this process. One of those is when the senate retires to consider it’s verdict. The prosecuting attorneys are excluded because they are not senators. How about the defense attorneys? Any defense attorney, selected by the president remember, that is a member of the senate is going to be part of that closed session. Just one reason it has never resulted in conviction. Then there is the seeming fact that one of the things a person serving a full term in the senate seems to misplace is his, or her, conscience. It just seems to get lost, somehow.

So what do we need to impeach and convict this usurper? It appears that we need about 56 conservatives to be elected to the senate. I don’t see that happening, do you? However let is be positive. The next session of congress is convened and Dirty Harry is relegated to senate minority leader. The conservatives and the swell of grass roots conservatism convinces a few more liberals that their interest in power is best served by getting BOH out of the White House. Just might happen. Sure can’t happen as things stand now.

 

On A personal Note

On A Personal Note

I have finished writing this blog and decided to add this preface. This is the toughest bit of writing I have ever done and with my book I have written hundreds of thousands of words for others to read, but this one strikes too close to home. It leaves me feeling naked and exposed.

I have led an affluent life for the most part. Owned my own homes for the most part. Even in college with two children. Yes, my wife was employed as a nurse. Which is a big reason for that, but then things were a lot cheaper then. My first home, a three bedroom affair in a pretty good neighborhood, cost me the huge sum of $80,000. Payments were less than $100.00 per month. After college I went to Vegas and ended up in casino management . Made a good living. Then, a couple of divorces later, I was broke, without a retirement plan, bank account, or savings, thanks to a viscous ex and an even more viscous female judge. I had lost my job because I was able to get the casino sold, which is the reason I was given the position.

My son decided he would like me to be close to him, way across the country in West Virginia. I picked up and moved. Probably not my best decision. I drove cab for a while and lived with my son and his girl friend, of all things. OK Let’s bring this a little closer to today.

I now am officially retired. An old man with disabilities and cannot find a job that I am capable of doing physically while the ones I can do mentally are not the ones people want an old man to do. My car is over twenty years old and I live in a tiny government subsidized apartment. Why do I tell you all of this? It is preamble.

I do get Social Security. That was adequate before Obama. Now, not so much. I have seen the cost of a loaf of bread go from $.89 to over $1.40 here in town and that is not the good stuff, trust me. Milk from $1.89 a gallon to $4.28 as of last week. Meat? Forget it. Even hamburger is almost $4.00/ LB. Chicken? Almost $6.00 for a bag of chicken at Wal Mart. I eat a lot of chicken, but that bag of chicken doesn’t las a month. Eggs have gone from $.79 to over $2.75.

I know a family that is in this country illegally, are Muslim by faith and living the good life. His home is a nice three bedroom place, nice yard, nice car, nice well fed and dressed family. The home was provided by the government, his food stamps run over $400.00, so he told me. Yes, I get food stamps. A whopping $15.00/mo. When Obama came into office with his promise of change, that indeed changed. I was then getting just over $40.00 The Muslim illegal immigrant’s car was subsidized by the government, and he receives SOCIAL SECURITY! Why? I don’t know. He has never paid a dime into it.

I have had to eat dog food to finish out several months. Not very tasty, but it does take the hunger pangs down a notch or two. Fact. Yeah, I do have a dog and no, he does not go without a proper diet. Foolish of me perhaps, but he is my best friend and only companion. Live with it. I do.

The inflation and resulting increase in costs have almost done me in. I sure hope my book makes a few sales! :) Obama’s solution? Print more money, raise the minimum wage, and raise taxes. Each a proven inflationary measure. If I have to point out how that is, you probably don’t have enough interest or knowledge of the facts to understand so I won’t waste both our time by attempting an explanation. I will note that several countries have decided that they don’t want their money tied in any way to ours. Can you say second rate country from world leader in 6 years?

I note that now Obama is sending our money not only to several Muslim factions along with those arms, but has decided to give a huge hand out to the Hamas. Hamas, for those that don’t know is the recognized Israel based terrorist organization. How’s that for slapping an ally in the face in public?

Obama has kept at least one of his campaign promises. He has brought about CHANGE. Less freedom, more expensive government, more hunger and starvation, more homeless and more underemployed people than ever before. The reason we don’t have seen higher unemployment? Companies have had to put so many people on less that 40 hours because of Obama care that they have to hire part timers to cover the vacant hours. So yes he has created jobs, He just hasn’t created any jobs with a living wage. BUT.  He still has a job approval rating that is over 50%.

Yeah, his personal approval is down to 47%.  Ain’t that a shame?

 

The Sixteenth Amendment

Income Tax

The 16th amendment to the constitution states in full: AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

As noted above this amendment modified Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution, specifically paragraph 4 of that section which states: “4:  No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be takenObviously the underlining is mine.

Now the question here is this amendment really necessary? Of course not. The next question that should arise is do we really need a national income tax? Well, actually we just might. But we certainly don’t need or want it in its present form. There are several things wrong with it and I would like to take some time enumerating a few of them.

The first point I would like to make is the current structuring of the IRS is, to my mind, in direct opposition to the will of the Constitution. Just take a look at the very first thing the founding fathers wrote in this well thought out document:

Article I

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The Congress of the United States knew this quite well so they needed a way to fool the people when they set up the income tax structure under this amendment. How to give the new Internal Revenue Service POWER! (such an innocuous sounding title, at the time) They came up with a way to give them legislative powers! They called it a “regulatory agency” They could formulate “regulations” the violation of which would be punishable in a court of law. Hmm Sounds like they actually have the power make their own laws and they do! Now that is not in that amendment. How did that happen? The people were asleep again. Should we repeal the 16th? Absolutely. Can we? Not a chance. Not with the mindset we have in congress these days. Wait a minute. It is not necessarily up to congress. We have some rights here. We the People actually do have some rights, no matter what the power elite in Washington want you to believe. Remember Article V of our Constitution? That little article gives US the right to change the Constitution via a Convention Of States. I understand that it must be very carefully set up. It certainly can’t allow just anything to be introduced. There are some really liberal and selfish people out there. How about we limit the topic? How about we set it up so only amendment designed to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government as the founding father intended. LIMIT the terms of office. LIMIT the ability to tax. LIMIT is the key word. The founding fathers made it very clear tha they were concerned about the very thing that is happening today. A group of professional politicians eager to have and keep power using their power of the amendment to rule us regardless of our rights or needs. Hell, we even have a President that has told the nation and congress the he will rule with his phone and his pen and congress and the people be damned.

We are ruled by fiat these days. For those of you that don’t know exactly what that means take a look at the definition. Full Definition of fiat.

1:  a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort

2:  an authoritative determination :  dictate

3:  an authoritative or arbitrary order :  decree <government by fiat>

Does it sound familiar?

Back to the 16th amendment.. This purposefully changed the role of the federal government and the way taxes were to be levied. Not in a good way in my opinion. The establishment of the IRS and their ‘regulatory powers’ and the virtual creation of a government within a government. One that does not answer to the people they are suppose to serve in any way. We try to remember that the last word in their name is SERVICE. Not law givers. Not legislature. Service.

I believe that any rational being can reason the we need to be able to collect taxes for the federal government. We need the military, we need help with the infrastructure from a central point. We need interstate commerce oversight as imposed by the Commerce Clause of the constitution, but we need to observe the 10th amendment at ALL times.

So, yes, we need taxes, as much as I hate that concept and we need a method of collecting those taxes.

Do you think that Congress will even allow to be considered a bill to ameliorate or mitigate one of their primary powers? Neither do I. The petitions will only serve to let them know that some people are unhappy, unfortunately they don’t care. Yeah, I signed one. Frustration, I guess.

 

Elected Official vs Citizen

Elected Official vs Citizen

There is a power struggle in this country and I believe the Conservatives are fighting the wrong battles. Let us look at the primary concern of the Conservative citizen. It can be stated in a simple phrase – Constitutional Freedom. Then there is the primary concern of the elected official. To be re-elected. To remain in power. We conservatives too often forget that in our strategies. One prevailing definition of the liberal philosophy can be concisely stated as “Moochers electing looters to steal from producers”. Now let’s think about the mind set of of the citizen liberals and how it came about. Those of you over forty or so can probably remember a time when the primary concern of everybody was providing for the family. Even beyond the family. We didn’t go around looking for people to help us, we went around looking for people to help. Being forced to take ‘charity’ was something to shame a family. Helping each other out in times of need was not charity. It was part of the ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ philosophy.

I know this began to change when Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1938, but it hadn’t taken a firm hold on the most of the people for a couple of generations. By then we had the Roosevelts with the “New Deal” and so on. But the real rapid change came with the federal government intrusion into the local classroom. The beginning of the indoctrination of children into the idea that the government should provide more for the people. And we have the beginning of the welfare state, but more importantly, the start of the welfare mind set in the lazier of our citizens. This soon began to take over the mind set of many more than just the inherently lazy. The people that saw the government largess going to the undeserving decided they wanted in on the deal.

OK How does all of this tie into the elected official? Those stalwarts saw an opportunity to establish personal fortunes and more importantly grab huge amounts of power. They could assure themselves minimum work, high paying jobs for longer periods by taking from all the people and then giving it back to some of them. Obviously taxes and spending had to go up, but so what? We had the strongest, richest economy in the world! Never mind how we got there, surely it could withstand the federal onslaught of a few extra taxes and just a little more inflation. How about a minimum wage? That would help for a while. At least until the cost of goods rose so the country’s employers could recoup the extra burden placed upon them. Didn’t take all that long for that to happen so every few years the liberals ‘boost the economy with a new minimum wage law. Of course the people would only see that they were taking home more income thanks to those marvelous people they had elected. Why, of course they deserved to vote themselves a pay increase!

Now they (those elected officials) knew they were on to something. Shucks, they couldn’t even begin to understand the growing concern of those stupid Republicans who insisted they were not doing the right thing. Why care about the right thing when the elections were what really mattered. Get more power every time you got reelected! Committee chairmanships! Select committees that got the media’s attention thus got them free advertising. Circulation went up and the media moguls saw the bottom line go up when they supported this stupidity. Who cares about the Constitution when money and power are at stake?

And so the great divide began. We had a division of power in the the very houses of government that were supposed to be unified in obeying the Law of the land, The Constitution of the United States. Now we didn’t just have the two party system we had a four or fice or six party system. There were the normal Democrats and Republicans with the conservatives in both and the liberals in both and now the Ultras on both sides that try to take everything to the extreme.

I began this blog with the suggestion that the conservatives were fighting the wrong battles. Now I that have attempted to explain how we got here let’s see if I can find a way back to fundamental freedom and self reliance that made us the richest most powerful country on this woebegone planet. That is, I admit, a tough job. First we have to understand how our freedoms are being usurped.

With the obvious exception of the pathological narcissist tyrant and his self admitted fascist agenda that sits in the Oval Office, the legislature and the Supreme Court have scrupulously avoided violating the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong there has been some creative interpretation of that sacred document, but no violation. Congress, for the most part, seems content to ignore the violent and constant violation of that tyrant I mentioned, but they have not done anything to violate the constitution. They have tried. I will mention the gun control attempts for example, but that didn’t get very far on the national level. So the Constitution seems to hold up, again for the most part. We do need to plug some holes. The welfare clause needs to be tightened up. Just adding a phrase similar to ‘if the states can do it the feds can’t’ would be sufficient. That would end obamacare, etc. Of course we need to educate the people. Now I mean educate, not rant! We have some very good minds in our midst that could suggest how we circumvent the lame stream media with success. Put ‘em to use.

We already have a single payor insurance system that the government has been running for years. Ask any vet how he/she likes it. But be prepared for a long listening period. What in the hell would allow anyone that is familiar with that snafu to believe the government could run our entire health care system. BUT … the average citizen is not aware of that boondoggle. So educate them. Don’t rant. Raise he minimum wage? Educate about the inflationary costs of that stupidity. It would help the government collect more taxes from the poor.

There are many areas in which the conservative groups are stubbing their own toes. Don’t believe me? Look at the election results and a host of other indicators. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I can read critically and make a real try to understand my fellow man.

I try to keep these blogs around 1000 words because I know the attention span is limited for many in this day and I have now gone over that, so let me write a finis to this one. If I get any feed back indicating the desire for more on this subject I will continue with another post.

 

Electe Official vs Citizen

 

Elected Official vs Citizen

 

There is a power struggle in this country and I believe the Conservatives are fighting the wrong battles. Let us look at the primary concern of the Conservative citizen. It can be stated in a simple phrase – Constitutional Freedom. Then there is the primary concern of the elected official. To be re-elected. To remain in power. We conservatives too often forget that in our strategies. One prevailing definition of the liberal philosophy can be concisely stated as “Moochers electing looters to steal from producers”. Now let’s think about the mind set of of the citizen liberals and how it came about. Those of you over forty or so can probably remember a time when the primary concern of everybody was providing for the family. Even beyond the family. We didn’t go around looking for people to help us, we went around looking for people to help. Being forced to take ‘charity’ was something to shame a family. Helping each other out in times of need was not charity. It was part of the ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ philosophy.

I know this began to change when Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1938, but it hadn’t taken a firm hold on the most of the people for a couple of generations. By then we had the Roosevelts with the “New Deal” and so on. But the real rapid change came with the federal government intrusion into the local classroom. The beginning of the indoctrination of children into the idea that the government should provide more for the people. And we have the beginning of the welfare state, but more importantly, the start of the welfare mind set in the lazier of our citizens. This soon began to take over the mind set of many more than just the inherently lazy. The people that saw the government largess going to the undeserving decided they wanted in on the deal.

OK How does all of this tie into the elected official? Those stalwarts saw an opportunity to establish personal fortunes and more importantly grab huge amounts of power. They could assure themselves minimum work, high paying jobs for longer periods by taking from all the people and then giving it back to some of them. Obviously taxes and spending had to go up, but so what? We had the strongest, richest economy in the world! Never mind how we got there, surely it could withstand the federal onslaught of a few extra taxes and just a little more inflation. How about a minimum wage? That would help for a while. At least until the cost of goods rose so the country’s employers could recoup the extra burden placed upon them. Didn’t take all that long for that to happen so every few years the liberals ‘boost the economy with a new minimum wage law. Of course the people would only see that they were taking home more income thanks to those marvelous people they had elected. Why, of course they deserved to vote themselves a pay increase!

Now they (those elected officials) knew they were on to something. Shucks, they couldn’t even begin to understand the growing concern of those stupid Republicans who insisted they were not doing the right thing. Why care about the right thing when the elections were what really mattered. Get more power every time you got reelected! Committee chairmanships! Select committees that got the media’s attention thus got them free advertising. Circulation went up and the media moguls saw the bottom line go up when they supported this stupidity. Who cares about the Constitution when money and power are at stake?

And so the great divide began. We had a division of power in the the very houses of government that were supposed to be unified in obeying the Law of the land, The Constitution of the United States. Now we didn’t just have the two party system we had a four or fice or six party system. There were the normal Democrats and Republicans with the conservatives in both and the liberals in both and now the Ultras on both sides that try to take everything to the extreme.

I began this blog with the suggestion that the conservatives were fighting the wrong battles. Now I that have attempted to explain how we got here let’s see if I can find a way back to fundamental freedom and self reliance that made us the richest most powerful country on this woebegone planet. That is, I admit, a tough job. First we have to understand how our freedoms are being usurped.

With the obvious exception of the pathological narcissist tyrant and his self admitted fascist agenda that sits in the Oval Office, the legislature and the Supreme Court have scrupulously avoided violating the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong there has been some creative interpretation of that sacred document, but no violation. Congress, for the most part, seems content to ignore the violent and constant violation of that tyrant I mentioned, but they have not done anything to violate the constitution. They have tried. I will mention the gun control attempts for example, but that didn’t get very far on the national level. So the Constitution seems to hold up, again for the most part. We do need to plug some holes. The welfare clause needs to be tightened up. Just adding a phrase similar to ‘if the states can do it the feds can’t’ would be sufficient. That would end obamacare, etc. Of course we need to educate the people. Now I mean educate, not rant! We have some very good minds in our midst that could suggest how we circumvent the lame stream media with success. Put ‘em to use.

We already have a single payor insurance system that the government has been running for years. Ask any vet how he/she likes it. But be prepared for a long listening period. What in the hell would allow anyone that is familiar with that snafu to believe the government could run our entire health care system. BUT … the average citizen is not aware of that boondoggle. So educate them. Don’t rant. Raise he minimum wage? Educate about the inflationary costs of that stupidity. It would help the government collect more taxes from the poor.

There are many areas in which the conservative groups are stubbing their own toes. Don’t believe me? Look at the election results and a host of other indicators. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I can read critically and make a real try to understand my fellow man.

I try to keep these blogs around 1000 words because I know the attention span is limited for many in this day and I have now gone over that, so let me write a finis to this one. If I get any feed back indicating the desire for more on this subject I will continue with another post.